Pages

▼

Sunday, October 11, 2015

The Social Justice Argument

Charter and choice fans continue to refine their argument about charters as a tool of social justice, as exemplified by an exchange with charter fan Dmitri Melhorn that quickly expanded to a conversation still puttering along this morning. Melhorn started in the reformster biz at McKinsey and Co, and moved on to co-found StudentsFirst, but his day job is venture capitalist. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to simply dismiss this argument (shared by many reformy folks) out of hand. Tne first part of their argument is solid; the second part is shot full of holes.

The First Part

The linkage between real estate and schools has resulted in public schools that are crippled by the effects of racism and poverty. We can talk about patterns of forced settlement as in Chicago, where blacks coming north during the Great Migration were herded into certain neighborhoods. We can talk about white flight in the 50s and 60s, and we can talk about the negative and segregating effects of public housing. In Our Children, Robert Putnam notes that the sorting of America has continued until today, pushing the non-wealthy and the non-white into neighborhoods that are mired in poverty and its effects, while the rich escape to gated communities, where the poor literally cannot follow them.

Housing costs, available jobs, patterns of open and subtle racism-- there's a whole lifetime of research there, but the end results is a highly heterogeneous pattern of settling in America, and since we have tied school attendance and funding to geography, schools are doomed reflect the socio-economic reality of the neighborhoods to which they are tied.

The argument says that we have school choice, but it is choice that is directly linked to wealth-- if you are rich enough to buy whatever house you like in whatever neighborhood you like, then you can, by choosing a house, choose a school. Put another way, escaping a bad school is often synonymous with escaping a bad neighborhood.

The Second Part

Reformsters start here with the premise that non-wealthy non-white students must be rescued from the terrible schools that are inextricably tied to poor support, poor resources, poor staffing, poor neighborhoods, and the lousy local control that leads to all of these poor inputs.

They see local control as an obstacle because particularly in large urban districts, "local control" means "control by board of rich jerks who don't give a rat's ass about schools in poor neighborhoods." They see "fix the school and fund it properly" as not-an-option because the schools are too broken, and because the teacher union stands in the way-- the union just wants more money for the school so that they can pay more terrible teachers. They would like to see all the terrible teachers fired, because they believe terrible teachers are at the root of terrible schools, but That Damned Union won't let them do it.

Because so many of these guys come from the corporate and financial investment world, they tend not just to believe that the system is broken, but that it is built wrong in the first place. Teacher lockstep pay and its lack of ties to performance data, funding based on what you want to do instead of how well you've done it, the utter tying of management's hands by government regulation and union agreements, the lack of enlightened profit-and-loss motivation anywhere in the system-- these things don't bother the reformsters merely in their particulars, but because, to them, these are just terrible ways to run a business in the first place. For them, it is like watching someone try to build a car with square tires and a rubber-band engine-- there's just no way anyone could ever succeed trying to what those guys are doing!

So their main impulse remains to scrap the square wheel system and replace it with one that follows the rules they know and understand. And that gets us to charters and choice. Charters will free students from their zip codes, bust up the tyranny of geography so that families who can't afford to live in East Gotrox can still send their kids to an East Gotrox calibre school.

The newest nuance to the choice argument is to point out that vouchers and voucher-like programs provide non-wealthy families the same kind of choice that wealthy folks can exercise by choosing where to buy a house. They believe that a free market in education will exert a cleansing influence, that competition will create excellence.

Reformsters are not very good at articulating why charters should be a good idea because they neither know nor speak the language of educators, nor do they really feel a need to-- after all, those are the people who tried to build the square-wheel car. To bridge that gap, they've tried through every means from Teach for America to the Broad Academy of Fake School Administration to create educators who speak the language of business and investment.

But when educators and reformsters try to talk about schools, certain points of contention always emerge.

Public education supporters-- sometimes angrily-- point out that charter schools and choice systems seriously damage the public systems to which they are attached. Reformsters observe-- sometimes angrily-- ask if poor students are supposed to simply sit and wait in crumbling, failing schools while public ed advocates try to tinker their system back to health. If they can save even a few students, isn't that worthwhile?

And let's not forget to have the argument about educational transformation. Reformsters routinely charge that public school supporters use poverty as an excuse for not teaching poor kids well; public school supporters charge that reformsters believe that happy, positive thoughts will somehow overcome real educational challenges.

A Mystery

In some cases, reformsters end up charging that public ed folks are denying Part One of this argument. But I think most people who are serious about these issues all see Part One pretty clearly. The big disconnects come when we get to Part Two-- the What Do We Do About All This part. Reformsters are inclined to argue that since the problems are real problems, their solutions must be real solutions. They are wrong.

So let me lay out where I think they get things wrong.

Local Control

I have to point out up front that we supporters of public education can sometimes fetishize local control just as badly as reformsters fetishize the Free Market.

Local control can be disastrous. The story of how five Pinellas County, Florida elementary schools in black neighborhoods were turned into the worst in the state in just eight years is one more reminder that elected school boards can do horrible, stupid, racist things. Elections do not turn racist asshats into crusaders for social justice.

Of course, the free market does not guarantee action for social justice, either-- anybody is free to open Racist Asshat Academy, or a charter school where students learn to follow orders, stay in line, and never speak unless given permission.

Any system can be used for or against the interests of social justice by people who want to fight for or against those interests. The difference is that a public school system must answer to the public. They are not allowed to meet in secret, keep their financial dealings secret, or make major decisions in secret. When they make decisions that the taxpayers don't like, they are required to sit there and listen to people complain to them (yes, many boards are trying to get rid of this feature of meetings, but they have to fight the laws about public comment, while charter operators can just go ahead and ignore the public at will).

The Pinellas County school board is going to have to deal with the voters and answer to the taxpayers. Eva Moskowitz doesn't have to answer to anybody.

Do People Want Choice?

Do you want a good marriage, or do you want a bunch of possible partners to choose from? Do you want a good meal for lunch, or do you want the choice of a bunch of lunches?

People don't want choice. They want a good school. The distinction is important for many reasons, not the least of which is economic-- do we need to prepare and maintain five possible school seats for Chris, or just one good one? Because one is cheaper than five.

Charter Quality

Are students actually escaping poor neighborhoods for high quality schools. The research says, mostly not. Or maybe sometimes. Mostly what the research says is that we could use some research done by somebody who wasn't, say, paid by the charter industry. There's very little research that looks at charter schools that are working with identical student populations as the local public schools.

The better question would be, how do we know? Virtually all of the studies of the question center on Big Standardized Test scores, and that's a terrible measure of school quality-- especially when we're focusing on social justice. Privileged kids don't get their privilege by scoring well on BS Tests, and nobody ever escaped poverty by getting really good at taking standardized tests. I don't notice any ivy league schools saying, "We're looking to reach out to some non-white non-wealthy students with good PARCC scores."

The focus on testing in US education has been toxic in the extreme, and the people who have the wealth and privilege to make educational choices for kids choose to move their kids to schools where nobody worries about the PARCC. Conversely, when folks are talking about how terrible a notoriously failing school is, "And their SBA scores are so low!!" does not come at the top of the list. But charters are perhaps even more vulnerable to the toxic testing plague because right now, when it comes to "proving" that you are a high-quality schools, the only game in town is BS Test scores. A charter that starts drilling test prep in November is not a high quality school, regardless of what the test scores indicate. We need to stop perpetuating the fiction that good PARCC or SBA scores are the doorway to a successful life.

So I'm calling the relative quality question a non-starter, because we still don't know how to measure school quality. Charter fans will cite demand as a measure of how great a school is, but waiting lists have been repeatedly debunked, and they provide no measure of what families are running from or toward.

Stability

One of the biggest problems with free market ideology in education is that the free market sorts businesses into winners and losers. That may be fine for coffee shops, but it's not okay for schools. Between 2000 and 2013, 2,500 charters closed. That represents a huge number of students whose education was uprooted and destabilized-- and it just keeps happening.

Students in East Gotrox don't just benefit from having a great school. They benefit from having a great school in their neighborhood that they attend with their friends and neighbors and which they know without question will be open every day of every school year.

Robert Putnam in Our Children talks about how important stabilizing influences are, how a stable setting helps them build the social capital that will help make them successful. Schools that will come and go and may or may not survive or which have good advertising to mask incompetent leadership-- these are exactly the wrong solution for non-wealthy students, who very much need something dependable and reliable.

The Zero-Sum Problem

"Well, isn't it worth it if we can rescue even a few students from a failing school?"

I'd agree-- if "rescuing" the handful of students didn't make things worse for the students left behind. But because policy makers want to have school choice without paying for it, we have a huge problem.

The biggest fallacy of school choice and charter systems is that we can have multiple school systems for the price of one. This is just insane. Let's say you have 100 students to educate. Which is cheaper? Educating them in ten different separately-administered and separately managed facilities, or educating all 100 in a single building?

The notion that the per-capita cost of a student is money that belongs to that student is an absurdist fiction, both in the notion of computing such a figure and in transforming it from taxpayer money into a student grant. But if 5% of the students leave a school, that school does not become 5% less costly to run. For that matter, the money that moves out with the charter students isn't enough to operate the charter, either-- hence the need for contributions from well-heeled donors and big-ticket fundraisers.

This problem is even more damaging in schools that are already underfunded and under-resourced. Losing money to charter-choice systems just makes the troubled school that much more financially distressed. So to "rescue" these ten kids, we are going to make things even worse for the ones left behind.

Let's say we have ten starving children, faced with a small, meager meal. So we take some food away from nine of them so that the tenth one can have a full plate. Does that feel like social justice? Not to me.

Free Market Motivations

There's a difference between asking "How do we solve this problem of social justice" and asking "How do we make money addressing this problem of social justice."So What's The Solution Today?

"So, what," choice fans will say. "Are we supposed to let all ten of them keep starving while we wait for someone to fix the food supply system?"

There's a selective urgency that comes with the charter argument-- things are dire and we must act right now, but charter schools deserve three or five years to prove themselves and we have to wait for the market to sort itself out. I agree there's some urgency here-- a child's childhood goes past quickly. But to me urgency means being careful, because we have limited slack to work with (this too, is one of the differences between poverty and wealth-- wealthy folks can make mistakes and recover, while the poor make one false move and pay for it forever).

So I don't want to let failing schools fail a minute longer than we have to-- but I don't want to see us bulldoze the system in haste and then realize we can't build anything decent to replace it after all. And while the massive issues of poverty are a definite obstacle to better education for the poor, I don't want to wait for those to be solved, either.

So What's The Solution Ever?

We already know most of what works. Charters have, ironically, "discovered" many things we already knew-- plenty of resources and support applied to the right assortment of students gets results. We know that letting buildings fall down around students is Not Good or Helpful. We know that filling a building with beginning teachers doesn't help. We know that getting good leaders into schools matters. We know that having strong connections to the community matters, and is, in fact, part of the point. I love this quote from Andre Perry:Our goal is not to improve a school in spite of the community. Our goal is to improve a community using schools.

Of course, in order to do that, we would have to involve the community in the development and growth of schools. We would have to stop conceiving social justice and education as gifts bestowed by drive-by do-gooders. It can't happen as something we do to people; it has to be done with them. And that is a problem for folks on both sides of this debate, but especially so for schools-should-be-run-like-a-business charter CEO's.

In short, we don't have a problem of knowledge. We have a problem of money and political will. We have states currently under court orders to fund their schools properly-- and they aren't doing it. Attracting and retaining top teachers is also Not A Mystery-- but all attempts to do so are done on the cheap, and many locations have simply abandoned the attempt, believing that we can have a system in which any warm body will work in a classroom. Hell, a working charter-choice system is not impossible-- it would just require more regulation and more money.

I know none of it is instantaneous or sexy, but here's the thing about the charter-choice approach-- it isn't working, isn't set up to work, and will likely never work. It can't do the things that its supporters want it to do. Unless your idea of social justice is a handful of families saying, "Well, I got mine, Jack. Good luck to the rest of you," this is not how you get social justice.

The charter-choice system, as currently conceived and executed, promises a possible maybe rescue for some students while making the vast majority of non-white non-wealthy students pay for it, while simultaneously lulling policy makers into thinking that the problem is actually being solved, all in a system that allows charter operators to conduct business without being answerable to anyone.

The problem (see First Part) is real. The solution being inflicted on public education is making things worse, not better. It is making some folks rich and providing excellent ROI for hedge funders, but neither of those outcomes exactly equals a leap forward in social justice. There's a whole argument to be had about charter booster motives; I figure that some are in it because they believe it will work better and some are in it because they believe it's the last great untapped well-spring of tax dollars. Ultimately, their motivation isn't as important as this: their solution will not actually solve anything.

If the only choice we had was public schools, we'd have better public schools.

The point is valid. Far too much of reformsterism looks like an attempt to weasel out of having to pay for education for Those People. If the rich were trapped in schools with Those People, we would have so many resources focused on public school that it would make a scholar's head swim. If charter operators focused all their energy and resources on demanding that public schools be fully funded and completely supported, we'd be in a different situation. Some would most likely say that such solutions are not possible because entrenched bureaucracies and teacher unions and the Big Institutional Blob stand in their way, and as someone who has spent his adult life within just a small-town version of that BIB, I won't pretend that public education doesn't suffer from all sorts of bureaucratically generated nonsense inertia.

But what the reformsters are also complaining about is that when they walk into the room and say, "This is what you should do," the folks in education don't slap their heads and yell, "My God, you're right! We've been so foolish. Here, inexperienced amateur, please tell us what to do!"

They are so absolutely certain that they are right, and that people working in the education field should just listen to them, right now. And that certainty in their own righteous rightness has also stopped progress on the pursuit of social justice.

As rich and powerful people with an interest in education and social justice, they could have gathered together summits of stakeholders, talked to educational experts, brought together people who have worked on these problems their whole lives-- and then listened to all of those folks. They didn't. And now they've largely lost the ability to tell the difference between factors that are part of the actual problem, and factors that just piss off the wealthy and well-connected by thwarting their will.

Yes, the army is losing the battle for educational social justice on many fronts. The solution is not to try to raise an entirely new army, but to support and supply the army you already have in the field. That doesn't mean you just encourage them to keep doing what hasn't worked, but you have to talk to them to understand what's really happening and what they really need.

I'm a high school English teacher. I'm not wise enough to know the solution for an educational social justice solution in this country, and I'm not powerful enough to gather together all the people who could help work it all out. But I know enough to know that A) an increasing gap between rich and poor has exacerbated existing problems of social justice in our country, with those problems being reflected, expressed and sometimes amplified in our schools and that B) the charter choice system currently being foisted on many parts of the country doesn't fix any of those problems.

To charter choice advocates: Your problem is a real problem, but your solution is not a solution. Whether you're blinded by devotion to your ideology or your intent to make a buck or just your lack of understanding, your vision is impaired. You need to clean your glasses, take a step back, and look again.

31 comments:

I'll believe that the rephormsters are serious about their concern for poor kids "stuck" in their failing zip codes the day they start spending their money and their political capital to build mixed-income housing developments in their own neighborhoods and start sending their own kids to school with the poor and middle class kids of said developments.

The Chicago example. I know about Chicago. I knew many people (not necessarily famous names, but they were "big" in those circles) who worked for social justice in Chicago. They all left. And let's see if Obama returns to Chicago. Let's see what Arne does (if and) when he returns. Rahm is part of their club. What has he done? Who in Chicago will "take on" these people who claim to be committed to social justice? I remember when Oprah was just beginning her talk show career in Chicago. Billions of dollars richer, she has now auctioned off her stuff and permanently moved away. Where will the leadership come from, if the people who say they care the most end up leaving? This is truly heart breaking. I think about it often.

What we know doesn't work to make a better educational system: 1) merit pay 2) evaluating teachers by VAMs 3) punishing schools for bad test scores 4) charter schools as a solution for whole neighborhoods; they cost too much, don't provide real choice, don't help all students, and don't help communities

What we know does work to make a better educational system: 1) small class sizes 2) sufficient, equitable funding 3) community schools in low income areas

Other things that don't help: 1) applying a business model to schools 2) people who aren't veteran educators trying to impose solutions 3) demonizing teacher unions

Other things I think could help: 1) better coordination of high school with higher ed and apprentice programs 2) grants from the government for pilot charter programs to be awarded by depts of ed in coordination with school districts, with criteria being that they must be innovative to the district and/or serve a specific need of the district, and cannot be for-profit 3) teachers interview and choose principal 4) principals and board of ed choose superintendent together 5) more counselors, fewer deans and administrators 6) an aesthetically pleasing environment 7) school groupings: preK-3rd; 4th-7th; 8th-10th; 11th-12th A test could be given at the end of each grouping. Tests should have national or international standing and must be agreed on by teachers. Grades 11 and 12 could be open enrollment magnet or theme schools.

How do we tell how schools are doing?Suggestions: 1)NAEP or similar scores, given no more than four times K-12 2) parent surveys 3) graduation rates 4) track students after graduation

How do we know if teachers are good?First we have to know: What makes a good teacher?Suggestion: Ask parents, students, and teachers, and come up with a list.

How do we know if teachers are good?Suggestions: 1) end-of-course student survey developed from list 2) classroom doors should be open at least part of the time; principal should be constantly in the hallways, looking and listening for criteria on list. Any concerns, conference with teacher. After a certain number of conferences if there's still concern, call in an intervention specialist/ consultant.

How do we get sufficient, equitable funding?Suggestions: 1) Make children and education a priority. 2) Legislators do their job.

What are the roles of the different stakeholders?

University Depts of Ed: 1) give surveys to graduates 2) study, compile, organize, and do research on cognitive learning strategies and what works 3) sponsor, in collaboration with school districts, innovative pilot charter schools

And, the "school choice" argument is bogus at best. Let's say you have three high schools within driving range, two very good and one quite poor. Everyone is going to want to go to the two good ones, which will not have the capacity to accept all of those students. So, the need is for more choices. But more choices with the same number of students means smaller schools, which means fewer economies of scale, which means more managers per worker, which means, etc.

Then you have the problem of having 10 high schools available. How does one acquire the information needed to make a good choice. One of the HS's is an arts magnet school and your child likes the arts but the school's ratings in other areas are quite weak, so .... But a friend in the PTA says ... and all of your child's friends are going to ...

Who has the time or information to make such choices? Would it not be better to "fix" the one poor HS? Have we ever systematically studied what it takes to fix schools? Now that would be an effective role for the Departments of Education (all of them).

Interesting article. I hadn't quite realized the whole context of the "invisible hand". Specifically, that people can just pursue what's in their own self-interest without a thought to the consequences for others and somehow the "invisible hand" of the market -- like the hand of God -- will magically make the outcomes good for everyone. The perfect justification for selfishness and greed. I knew that neoliberals and libertarians worship at the altar of capitalism, but now I see where this religious fervor comes from. Though it's hard for be to believe anybody actually believes this nonsensical crap. I don't think they do, I think they're just cynically using it to justify their selfishness.

Unfortunately many people, not just your normal credulous economist, believe this. A belief in the 'free market' is up there with biblical fundamentalism for many entrepreneurs, especially those who a) have never actually read Adam Smith and b) who don't know any real history.

I think it is worth exploring exactly where the consensus in favor of choice disappears.

I take it that almost everyone is in favor of a high school student being able to choose some classes in the locally publicly controlled high school and take those classes at public expense or take all their classes outside the the local publicly controlled high school if it were privately paid for. Many would also allow for students to take some classes outside the local publicly controlled high school at public expense (like the Running Start program in Washington State) but very few would allow a high school student to take all of their classes outside the publicly controlled high school at public expense.

It seems to me that the important things that make a difference to people are 1) who is offering the classes and 2) who is paying for the classes. Perhaps age is also an issue as I think fewer would be happy with primary school students choosing from a wide variety of classes even within a building.

Exactly where do you want to limit a student and their family's ability to choose classes?

Well, I don't know about the question you're asking (which, as usual, is a red herring anyway), but I know the rephormsters' consensus about choice ends at their neighborhood. They're all about poor black people being stuck in "failing" schools, so long as those poor black people stay stuck in failing neighborhoods. How about if we re-frame zoning law as a "choice" paradigm? Don't you think poor black people deserve the choice of living in, say, Bill Gates' neighborhood?

It is not a red herring at all. Choice is apparently fine when a student chooses courses within a school, only somewhat suspect when a student chooses some courses outside of the school, but an obviously terrible idea when a student chooses all their courses from outside the school. Why the sudden change in the acceptability of allowing a student to choose?

I have no idea about reformists (I do not like belittling people by making up names to insult them. I know this is yet another reason that I am not an orthodox commentator on these blogs) think about zoning laws, and I doubt you have any idea either. Certainly zoning laws have always been used by local governments to segregate their citizens.

How is a comment about student choice a red herring in a post about choice? Perhaps I ask some uncomfortable questions, but it seems to me that if you are going to applaud choice of courses inside a school and condemn choice between schools, you might have a principled argument to justify your position.

Here's a great article on the fallacies of school choice that should be read far and wide. It skewers and eviscerates the ludicrously inappropriate Milton Friedman mindset on competition and portability of funds being the driver of quality in education. http://horacemannleague.blogspot.com/2013/01/asymmetric-information-parental-choice.html

It is worthwhile thinking about the zero sum problem. Peter argues that rescuing some strong students might be worthwhile if "rescuing" the handful of students didn't make things worse for the students left behind." That makes this a zero sum game, where benefiting Peter hurts Paul and benefiting Paul hurts Peter. Which student has the greater moral claim? I have a hard time thinking that it is just to treat Peter's education as a means to help Paul rather than treating Peter's education as an end in itself.

I do not find the multiple system argument persuasive because schools do not have large returns to scale. If they did, NYC public, with over 1.1 million students, would provide a much better education at a lower cost than the 404 independent school districts that Massachusetts uses to educate .995 million students in Massachusetts.

Public School A budgets for its usual 30 students in each grade, 1-6. A new charter opens in the fall and skims 6 students from each grade. School A has lost 20% of its funding, but it can't lay off any of its teachers -- the students cannot be rearranged in any other coherent way. The students left behind are needier, because the charter doesn't accept them. But the school must cut 20%. Needier kids, less money = destabilized system.

School B has its usual 30 students. Nearby charter has collected the state money for its students, and now is free to "counsel out" the messier, more troubled ones. They are welcomed back into School B, which now has more students, more needs, but no more funding.

Please keep the discussion real and practical. (I'm sure you'll come back with some reason why you're right and I'm wrong, but I'm not a philosophical economist. I'm a classroom teacher in a public school with real students in front of me every day who are underserved because some of the money that should go to them has been siphoned off by unaccountable charters who don't play by the same rules.

I would agree that if NYC Public had 100 students to educate, it would be a mistake to use two separate school systems to educate those students. NYC Public, however, has 1.1 million students to educate. Suppose we divided the students in NYC Public into not two, but twenty completely independent school systems. EACH ONE of those twenty systems would have around 55,000 students and be about the size of Boston Public Schools, the 73 largest school district in the country.

Do you think that it takes significantly more than 55,000 students to efficiently run a school district? If so, almost every school district in the country is too small to efficiently educate the students in the district.

NYC certainly sounds like it's too big a district and 20 districts would be better. But that would simply be re-zoning and I don't see what it has to do with "choice". Neighborhoods still need a good community school, charters on top of the 20 districts would still drain resources, nothing guarantees that charters would be good schools or offer true "choice", and schools still need more funding. Even if these 20 districts were all charters, that wouldn't guarantee that parents had a good "choice" in a school in their community.

economist: Again, trying to keep it real, relevant, and practical -- parents don't care about the macro view, they care about their local school and their own little neighborhood. Individual NYC schools and students lose when a charter opens up in their very building and siphons off resources. They don't give a sh*t about the macro view.

I think that many families in New York City feel like Rebecca that an organization that tries to educate 1.1 million students is simply too large. Their own little school is one of more than 1,700 schools in the district. I think they like the idea that the person in charge is in the school their children attend.

Rebecca,

The original post states that "The biggest fallacy of school choice and charter systems is that we can have multiple school systems for the price of one." My point is that in New York City, you could have 20 school systems for the price of one, and each of those school systems would be one of the 100 largest school systems in the entire country.

1. So what? I could play the reductio ad absurdum game as well, that if smaller systems are better, and economies of scale play no significant role, the ideal system would consist of nothing larger than individual classrooms. But that would be a pointless discussion, because it's impractical and ridiculous, and ignores the basic premise that Mr. Greene and the other commenters keep stating, and you have chosen to ignore. I'm not sure what point(s) you're trying to make, and it frankly seems like you enjoy arguing for the sport of it, not out of any strong convictions about how to guarantee an equitable education for all of our children. For some of us, this is a deadly serious discussion, that we deal with every day, and where there is honest disagreement, so be it, and try to make the best case you can. I find casual intellectual jousting offensive and obstructive in this case, and I will not continue to indulge you.

2. My final attempt at an exchange of real, practical ideas: Where I live, school funding is tied mostly to local property taxes. Breaking up a large city school system into several smaller units would result in the poorer parts of the city receiving less funding for their schools than the more affluent neighborhoods. Don't know if that's the case in NYC.

Economies of scale play an important role in small schools and small school districts. The median size high school in my state has about 250 students, so many high school students in my state have no access to advanced courses like AP classes. Many of my strong students lament having to tread water for their senior year in high school because they had already taken all the academic courses available to them. Once a school or school district reaches a certain size (maybe something around 1,500 for a high school and perhaps 15,000 for a school district or school system), the scale economies disappear.

I would suggest that school funding should be less dependent on local property taxes. This will, I think, result in state legislatures taking more control over education, but I think it is a price worth paying.

If I'm understanding you, you're saying that these small districts have trouble economically because they aren't wealthy enough to have a lot of money from property taxes? And that they would have more money if the districts were bigger?

Some of the smaller rural districts in my area have consolidated so that they could offer more different classes. Back in the late 80's I taught in a rural district that refused to consolidate. They had 500 students K-12 and only 30 in 12th grade. Somehow they offered a wide variety of classes. There were nine periods a day and very few study halls. They had to get creative, for example somehow finding a teacher who was certified in both science and social studies. They permitted very small classes for things like fourth year foreign language and calculus. I don't remember about AP classes but I'm beginning to wonder how important they are. The district still isn't consolidated.

I've always thought funding schools through property taxes makes no sense and is not fair. Of course, it used to be that at least 60% of funding came from the state, but I think that number is about half that right now. In Ohio the supreme court said years ago that funding was inequitable and they need to change the formula, but the Republican legislature has refused to. I agree that school funding should be less dependent on local property taxes, but I don't think that should give the state the right to have more control over local schools.

My basic point is that if you have a district of 60,000 students and you lose 10,000 students to private schools, charter schools, or the parents simply move away, the cost per student of providing a high quality education is not very different in the now 50,000 student district compared to the 60,000 student district.

In the more rural areas of my state a high school with a graduating class of 30 might already be serving every student in the county. The question there is how far they want students to travel to get to their high school. I think that online courses are really the only way to give each of these students anything close to a rich curriculum.

Different states choose different ways to finance education. Vermont I believe uses no local funding, while Illinois has relatively little state level funding. I do think that increasing state funding will inevitably result in more state control over how the money is spent, but I am not endorsing that as a good idea. I am just making a prediction.

If a school district suddenly loses1/6 of their students, it doesn't lower their operating costs by 1/6. You would still need to maintain the same buildings and you couldn't cut teachers unless you cut programs.

I think online courses do not work well with many students, even at the college level, and certainly not below that, and are never as enriching an experience as being in a classroom with a teacher.

I know you aren't endorsing more state control, but I don't think it has to inevitably result from increasing state funding.